There exists a global need for the protection of sensitive structures from assault by an armed aggressor. Especially vulnerable to attack are nuclear power station containment and turbine buildings, armaments and munitions stores, weapons and biological research facilities, etc.
Weak points in the security of such structures are often entrances, especially entrances other than the primary entrances of the structures. Such non-primary entrances are traditionally protected by the use of a security door coupled with video cameras and other electronic devices. The outside area adjacent to the entrance is usually well illuminated and patrolled either physically or by video. To a trained aggressor, such protective measures are not an effective deterrent.
In the current world environment, security leaks are rampant. Data describing security systems and patrol schedules are often compromised. Additionally, an aggressor is likely to be well-trained, well-equipped, and acting for a "cause," i.e., willing to die to achieve a specific goal. There exists, therefore, a considerable problem in the protection of non-primary entrances to sensitive structures from assault by a skilled and determined aggressor in possession of suitable intelligence and materiel to achieve the aggressor's goal.
For example, were the destruction of a target at a specific facility to be the desired goal, an aggressor would have to assault the building housing the target. To accomplish this, an aggressor may utilize commando techniques to bypass perimeter security and gain access to the area adjacent to the building. Once in the appropriate area, the aggressor need only wait in concealment until patrolling guards have passed and are an appropriate distance away. The aggressor may then, in rapid succession, plant explosives to breach the security door, seek cover while the door is breached, gain ingress through the breached door, and use explosives to destroy the target. The first indication of assault may be the breaching of the door, with all subsequent actions occurring with sufficient rapidity to render the patrolling guards incapable of preventing the destruction of the target. The guards may, of course, be in a position to incapacitate the aggressor after the aggressor's goal has been achieved. Whether or not the aggressor can escape is often irrelevant.
As is exposed by the above assault scenario, a severe problem exists with conventional unguarded-door security methodology, especially since such "security" doors are often little more than glorified metal fire doors and are usually not proof against an explosive assault. The conventional solution is therefore to place a guard at the entrance in question. However, this in itself poses several problems.
A guard is subject to ennui, be the guard an individual or a team. It is virtually impossible to keep a guard alert indefinitely. After months or years without incident, an "if it hasn't happened, it won't happen" mentality can set into the subconscious and decrease the efficiency of the guard. In fact, the guard may suffer ennui to the point where there is effectively no guard at all, especially when there is a total absence of activity and boredom is at a maximum, as in the small hours of the morning. A traditional partial solution to this problem is an increase in random, unscheduled, and frequent simulated assaults and other training drills. Unfortunately, the use of such drills can in some ways actually decrease the efficiency of a guard, e.g., in the event of an actual assault, the guard may hesitate before initiating appropriate actions (i.e., actions requiring deadly force) on the assumption that "it's only another drill." Such a hesitancy may be all that is required to allow an aggressor to overcome the guard and gain ingress.
Additionally, in a well-planned and concerted assault, an aggressor may be able to overcome a guard without triggering an alarm. Such an attack is especially likely when the aggressor is in possession of suitable intelligence. Naturally, a guard consisting of an individual or a small team is far more likely to be overcome than one consisting of a large team, yet a large team is unlikely to be posted at an out-of-the-way location. Thus, the use of a guard is only partially effective at best.
Also, members of a guard may be subverted. This is more likely to occur with an individual or a small team than a large team, yet an individual or a small team is precisely the type of guard to be posted at a seldom-used structure entrance.
Another problem associated with guards is that guards are expensive. Wages, benefits, insurance, taxes, and training expenses can become a significant portion of a security budget.
An alternative method of providing security for secondary structure entrances is the use of a central guard. Such a guard is typically a large team maintained in a centralized location (a guard room). By being a large team, the guard suffers minimally from ennui. Also, by being a large team in a central location, the guard may be of sufficient strength to oppose an aggressor at any of a plurality of locations throughout the facility. However, the central location may be some distance away from secondary structure entrances, and a significant delay may occur before a central guard can detect and respond to an assault at a remote secondary structure entrance. Accordingly, it would be desirable if vestibular passways were provided for secondary structure entrances, and if such passways were constructed so as to delay ingress until a remotely located guard could arrive.
Several problems occur in the construction and implementation of vestibular security entrance passways. A passway to protect an existing structure entrance is conventionally constructed at the location it is to be used. This approach is often excessively expensive and insecure. An immediate and obvious difficulty lies in dealing with multiple venders to achieve construction. A first contractor, for example, may construct the security doors, a second contractor may construct the doorframes, a third contractor may construct the vestibule itself, and a fourth contractor may oversee the construction and integration of the components. Often, such multiple-vender scenarios lead to confusion and delays.
Quality control poses yet another problem. Security doors and passways desirably meet stringent quality-control requirements, e.g., material types and grades, explosion resistance, etc. Failing to meet specific requirements effectively compromises the entire vestibular entrance passway. With local contractors providing both materials and construction, it becomes very difficult to maintain quality control.
Additionally, the construction of such entrance passways is subject to active and passive sabotage. Sabotage occurs when actions are taken that compromise the integrity of the passway under construction. Active sabotage occurs when the individual(s) committing such actions intend to compromise passway integrity. Passive sabotage occurs when that passway integrity is compromised even though the individual(s) committing such action possess no such intent. In either case, sabotage is committed and the entrance passway fails to provide proper protection.
What is needed, therefore, is a vestibular entrance passway constructed off-site, where quality control and security can be maintained and where all standards can be met. This vestibular entrance passway should, when in position, severely inhibit ingress of an existing structure entrance by a highly trained, well-equipped aggressor, so as to delay ingress sufficiently to allow the arrival of armed guards from a central location.